FLORA INDICIA. 233 fructum multiloculareni coalita; stigmatibus sessilibus, linearibus, ra- diantibus, appendiculatis v. inappendiculatis. Ovttla pauca r. plurima anatropa, per totam cavitatem sparsa, rarius 2-3 sutura clorsali inserta. CarpeUa pauca, libera, v. plurinaa in baccam multilocularem polysper- mam putredine dehiscentein mediante toro coalita, carpellis rarius dorso obscure dehiscentibus. Semina libera v. in pericarpii pulpa immersa, arillata v. exarillata; testa coriacea Crustacea v. subossea, scabra v., leevi; tegmine membranaceo ; albumen farinaceum y. subcarnosum, axi plerumque canale percursum. JBm&ryo orthotropus, sacculo nuclei in- clusus, albuminis cavitate prope hilura semi-immersus; cotyledonibw crassis, plerumque intus cavis, plumulam fbventibus; radicula brevi.— Herbae aguatica^ rhizomate eras90 prostrate folia et scapos raritt* ramos foliiferos etjlori/eros gerente, foHis natmtibux peltatis kastatis corda- tisve rarius demersis seclisque? petiolo stipulate v. exttipulato, pedunculis extra-axill&ribus, floribus nata^ibwnuptiisjperactispUruinque demersis. The true-position of this Order we believe to be between Berleridea and Papa- eeracea, as far as this can be shown in a linear series. Before proceeding to discuss its affinities, it is necessary to enter into the conflicting statemeats and opinions of some able botanists who have studied its organization and relationship. Brown long ago announced it as his opinion (' Flinders' Voyage,' ii. 598, and lat- terly, Plant. Jav. Kar. 108), that the Cabombca are only a section of IfympJueapea, a conclusion in which he has been followed by none, though Asa Gray (Gen. Plants United States, i. 91) has, under the former Order, recorded his adhesion to this opi- nion, and we know it to be Bentham's also; and, after a very careful examination of The Orders Nyinphaac&f, C&botnbces and Nelw&bi&ceas have long been considered as forming one group or alliance; which has been called Nymphaa* by Salisbury (Ann. Bot ii. 70), Hydropeltidece by Battling, VitelUgera byMartius, Nympfueinea by Brongniart, Nymphales by Xindley, Chlamydollastece by Adrien de Jussieu, Ne- Ivmbia by Endlicher, and Nymph#oide<E by Meuuer (including in the lost two cases the Sarraceniacea). It is useful to quote these terms, for they show how uniformly all systematic bo* tanists have regarded the altianceta natural Much difference of opinion has, how- ever; existed, as to whether its members should be referred to Monocotyledons or to Dicotyledons, and very recently an eminent botanist and accomplished anatomist has endeavoured to prove that it should be divided, Nelvmbiacea being retained in Dico- tyledons, and Nywifhaacefs peraaps referred to Endogens. It is not necessary to do more than allude to the opinions of some of the earlier botanists, of whom Csesalpinius, Magnolias, and Bernard de Jassieu referred Nywpkaea to Papaveracea ; or of their followers, who, being ignorant of the structure and de- velopment of the embryo and young plant, were led away by analogies, and classed Nymphaa with IXydrocharidea and other Monocotyledons ; such were Gscrtner, A L. Jussien, Claude Eichard, and J. St. Hilaire: their views have been discussed at length by De Candolle and others. Of the modern systematic authors who have stu- died the subject we believe that the following consider the place ofNympfa* to be where we retain it—Arnott, Brown, Brongniart, Bartling, Bentham, De Candolle, JBndlicher, Asa Gray, A. de Jussieu, Meisner, Salisbury, Spach, Wight; those who incline to consider it Monocotyledouous are lindley, and perhaps Plaiichon; Trecul, who discusses tho question in an anatomical and physiological point of view only, * For the dates and relative merits of these names see Planchon's excellent * Etudes BUT lea N/rspheaeeV (Ann. Sc. Nat. scr. 8. xix. 17), which contains by very far the best systematic account of the Order that has hitherto appeared.